Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Not private companies.  I think it only involves agencies that receive tax payer funding.

---

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:
What about for females?  Do they have the same requirements in training as the males?

---

Quote:

---

Well they have different physical requiremtents.

---

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:

Quote:

---

Well they have different physical requiremtents.

---

Sounds like affirmative action to me.  The physical requirements should be relative to what is required on the job, not whether you have a penis or vagina.

---

Quote:

---

Simplicitry said:

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:

Quote:

---

Well they have different physical requiremtents.

---

Sounds like affirmative action to me.  The physical requirements should be relative to what is required on the job, not whether you have a penis or vagina.

---

While I'm not going to completely disagree with you, I would like to point something out. The Military is one of the few organizations that is legally allowed to discriminate against people for all types of different physical characteristics, or disabilities that may interfere with military service. Eczema, Psoriasis, Asthma, missing limbs, actually almost any physical disability.

They have physical tests that you must pass to prove that you are in healthy physical condition. Healthy physical condition are two different things for men, and women. You really do have to take into consideration the differences in our bodies structures, on hormone levels. Women will never compare to men when it comes to physical strength, and athletic ability. This is no way to say I think women are inferior, just different. To ignore these differences is a bit misguided. They make men under a certain height, and weight show that they can lift over a certain amount of weight over their heads. I don't remember the weight, cause I never took the test, but I remember them giving to the shorties. That doesn't look much different in my eyes.

Again, I'm not completely disagreeing with you. It just a thought on your comment/

---

And the military does so regularly, at taxpayer expense and against the best interests of their own institutions and, in some cases, personal safety.

Most of the women I know are significantly in better physical shape than the men. I understand that while the stigma of physically incapable male and female employees is more of an issue in domestic LEO, a few Army and Navy buddies have said that this is becoming a bit of an issue as of late. Also, all of the females I know who served in the US armed forces over the past ten years are much more likely to be able to kick my ass, or your ass, than many of the males. Many of the males took bare-minimum training, by their own admission, and many of the females went on to actual auto-didactic education in the use of firearms and combat skill sets.

The original post seems a bit weak and inflammatory. This coming from the mindset that thinks strong black people were less useful in war than skinny white dudes. Still just as wrong as affirmative-action. I think this community here has some strange notions of "conservative" and "liberal", but it's whatever.

Hope you are all well.


~Monk

Quote:

---

KroniclyHigh said:
You act like having a black president suddenly eliminates a lot of racism in the country, the racism is still there the exact same amount there was before there was a black president

---

Quote:

---

KroniclyHigh said:
Yeah I'm racist against redneck honkies and ignorant white people fuck em, you try being a native living in a completely racially divided town and see if you don't get jaded and start making the feelings mutual.

---

Quote:

---

numonkei said:

Quote:

---

Simplicitry said:

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:

Quote:

---

Well they have different physical requiremtents.

---

Sounds like affirmative action to me.  The physical requirements should be relative to what is required on the job, not whether you have a penis or vagina.

---

While I'm not going to completely disagree with you, I would like to point something out. The Military is one of the few organizations that is legally allowed to discriminate against people for all types of different physical characteristics, or disabilities that may interfere with military service. Eczema, Psoriasis, Asthma, missing limbs, actually almost any physical disability.

They have physical tests that you must pass to prove that you are in healthy physical condition. Healthy physical condition are two different things for men, and women. You really do have to take into consideration the differences in our bodies structures, on hormone levels. Women will never compare to men when it comes to physical strength, and athletic ability. This is no way to say I think women are inferior, just different. To ignore these differences is a bit misguided. They make men under a certain height, and weight show that they can lift over a certain amount of weight over their heads. I don't remember the weight, cause I never took the test, but I remember them giving to the shorties. That doesn't look much different in my eyes.

Again, I'm not completely disagreeing with you. It just a thought on your comment/

---

And the military does so regularly, at taxpayer expense and against the best interests of their own institutions and, in some cases, personal safety.

Most of the women I know are significantly in better physical shape than the men. I understand that while the stigma of physically incapable male and female employees is more of an issue in domestic LEO, a few Army and Navy buddies have said that this is becoming a bit of an issue as of late. Also, all of the females I know who served in the US armed forces over the past ten years are much more likely to be able to kick my ass, or your ass, than many of the males. Many of the males took bare-minimum training, by their own admission, and many of the females went on to actual auto-didactic education in the use of firearms and combat skill sets.

The original post seems a bit weak and inflammatory. This coming from the mindset that thinks strong black people were less useful in war than skinny white dudes. Still just as wrong as affirmative-action. I think this community here has some strange notions of "conservative" and "liberal", but it's whatever.

Hope you are all well.


~Monk

---

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:
Sometimes its manifest as a quota for hiring percentages.  Other times being a minority counts as an employment qualification, like a degree or experience.  Though private companies arnt required to do it, they often volunteer to discriminate for public relations.

---

Quote:

---

numonkei said:
Also, all of the females I know who served in the US armed forces over the past ten years are much more likely to be able to kick my ass, or your ass, than many of the males. Many of the males took bare-minimum training, by their own admission, and many of the females went on to actual auto-didactic education in the use of firearms and combat skill sets.
~Monk

---

I never met a female soldier who could do a hundred pushups or run two miles under twelve minutes.  Watching them attempt chinups is certainly interesting.

I never met a female soldier that was trained regularly in the weapons and tactics that combat arms soldiers do.

Now I grant you that females could make better sniper shots because they have better fine motor coordination.

I think that women have no place in combat.

I don't think that's sexist, I just prefer that women are never subjected to the horrors of being a P.O.W.

(I think some may call that a "realistic" point of view?)


Women and men have fundamentally different strengths and weaknesses.  I think that is healthy and good.

Quote:

---

HippieChick8 said:
What do you mean by "working for something better"?  What, exactly, is meant by "something better"?

---